Snobs aside, we love youse all

Page Tools

Languages serve two masters - identity and intelligibility. Sometimes we use it to highlight who we want the world to think we are. Sometimes, it's more about reaching out to someone else. Mostly, identity and intelligibility are compatible. But occasionally there's a collision of goals.

The case of the second person pronoun "youse" is just such an instance where often the advantage of functionality is sacrificed to protect our image of ourselves. In other words, we'd rather risk momentary ambiguity than tamper with our public face.

"Youse" is a word that the self-appointed custodians of English love to hate. And not only literary types. Apparently, research into small businesses uncovered the fact that many people would withdraw their custom if they were spoken to by staff with the "youse" habit. It just "clangs", they said. So, too, does "Hi guys", "yep/nah", "like", "ain't" and "We haven't got none".

I've sat across a desk from a refined dictionary marketing man as he shuddered in horror while recounting his nephew's occasional use of "youse". He looked visibly pained at the thought of this young boy bringing such disgrace to the family. I tried to tease out the issues - essentially a kind of "rankism" ("rankist" being a recent superordinate term for "classist") - but he wasn't interested. No nephew of his was gonna use "youse". While tempted to point out his own "gonna", I decided to bite my tongue.

Prejudice dies slowly, if ever. It's a long time that poor "youse" has been maligned and hounded. Initially, its associations with the lowly status of Irish English in Australia meant it was perceived as sub-standard by those committed to their own superiority. Then it became a class thing, linking up with rough hands, coarse tongue, minimal education and social dysfunction.

If I thought it would make an iota of difference, I'd start up a Defence of Youse Society. But while a handful of lexicographers and linguists might be supportive ideologically, I expect they'd be wholly indisposed to street activism. In any case, as Macquarie Dictionary's Sue Butler puts it, "prescriptivism" is not necessarily a dirty word, any more than "descriptivism" means an open-slather approach to lexicography. "Both words get bandied around but the words themselves lose illumination as they gain heat."

As far as "youse" goes, its disrepute is a pity given the word's ubiquity and utility. There's no doubt that it's needed. Ever since "thou" faded from use, "you" has been massively overworked. It's had to service the functions of singularity, plurality, familiarity and formality. That's a big job description for a little pronoun.

Think about it: many languages employ a different pronoun to differentiate the familial or friendly status from the more formal, distant, respectful. Think French, Spanish, German. But not good old democratic, egalitarian, non-nepotistic English. It's always, invariably and inevitably, "you" - whether you're speaking to the dog or the Queen. "You" pre-emptively slashes everyone to one-size-fits-all uniformity; it reminds us that we all go out feet first.

The arrival of "youse" for plural gave "you" sorely needed R&R. The brief was clear. "Youse" is friendly, inclusive, all-embracing and unambiguously so, even through its variants ("youse-all", "y'arl", "yez" and "y'all"). I'm not recommending a blanket substitution of "you" with "youse", for that would simply create another over-worked pronoun.

We could still keep "you" for the dog and the Queen but adopt "youse" for the friendly, plural context, say for when the whole House of Windsor plus corgis drop over for pizza.